Obama's Changed Positions on Issues

The AP reports on Barack Obama's changed opinions on issues over time. Chief among them:

The death penalty

In 1996, when he was running for a seat in the Illinois Senate, Obama's campaign filled out a questionnaire flatly stating that he did not support capital punishment. By 2004, his position was that he supported the death penalty "in theory" but felt the system was so flawed that a national moratorium on executions was required.

Today, he doesn't talk about a moratorium and says the death penalty is appropriate for "some crimes — mass murder, the rape and murder of a child — so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage."

The Patriot Act

When he ran for the Senate, Obama called the act a "shoddy and dangerous law" that should be replaced. After he took office, the Senate considered an update that Obama criticized as only a modest improvement and one that was inferior to other alternatives. Still, Obama ended up voting for that renewal and update of the Patriot Act.

The article says Democrats are unlikely to attack him on his changing positions for fear of seeming negative, but Republicans may not show such restraint. Another person interviewed in the article thinks Republicans will use a different argument:

"If Obama is the Democratic candidate, I don't think the Republicans will be attacking him on a particular issue," said Dianne Bystrom, director of the Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University. "They'd be attacking him on his experience."

I don't think Obama's changed positions matter much against Rudy or Romney, who aren't in any position to complain.

Against McCain it becomes part of a larger attack on experience. I suspect it also gets used to paint Obama as a guy selling snake oil compared to McCain's "straight talk."

But I agree that McCain is toughest against any of the Dems. He hasn't done nearly as much to anger Latinos, he still (still!) has a fairly positive image in the public and at large. Edwards' change in positions becomes a bigger problem against McCain, too. They'll paint Clinton as a "triangulator" compared to McCain the straight talker (which is a joke given how much McCain has pandered to his base).

The Democrats would have to go after McCain on Iraq and paint him as another Bush. Obama might be best to do the former since he opposed the war. Although I think even Clinton and Edwards could effectively use the war. They voted for it, but they - like most Americans - have changed their minds. Call it a reality-based campaign. Edwards' one problem on Iraq is the allegation in Shrum's book that he voted for it for purely political purposes. I think that hurts him potentially against McCain.

But, yeah, McCain is the smart nominee. He's the toughest for any of them to beat.

probably is giving McCain a 2nd look. I don't see the evangelicals working hard for McCain.

As for the "straight talk" reputation, perhaps people should be reminded of McCain, 2000, and McCain 2004. McCain's support for the Iraq war will not help him with independents- unless Democrats commit malpractice and don't remind voters of his unrepentant position.

Iraq is the George Bush and Republican debacle. In this regard, never-mind Democrats who voted for the AUMF or funding. The GOP's determination to depict Democrats as soft on the war works to the Democrats advantage in branding this as a GOP debacle.

unrelenting support of the war in Iraq is entirely sincere. He, of all people, should be fervently against it. If he had voted against it, he could now pull a reverse-Lieberman and run as an Independent/quasi Democrat.

light of his recent surge. I didn't think he could get his party's vote.

I don't think the evangelicals will turn out heavily for him though in the general election. Right now my guess is the Huckabee take down will cost the GOP dearly in foot soldiers.

As for Obama's changed positions, it is the politics of expedience. He just hasn't sold me on his campaign. I am trying to keep an open mind, but his original supporters haven't helped in the regard. BTD's support is frankly too soft to sell me. I keep hoping there is a Lincoln in there somewhere in Obama's soul, but I haven't seen it.

I am not sure inexperience is the best attack on Obama, though one might think so.

Given the GOP's utter incompetence, failure and corruption at governance, this election ought to be a sweeping change election, but I worry the Democratic party won't seize the moment and at best, the moment will seize them.

My thinking is that the Republicans will through everything and the kitchen sink at any Democratic candidate. It will not be only experience; it'll be race, the name Hussein, the Muslim father, the support for the war in 2004-2005, etc.

The assumption that the media likes Obama forever ignores that fact that the media always echoes the Republican attack arguments : Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Hillary Clinton. For the life of me, I cannot understand what's the rational of a change in this behavior.

In 2003, Obama's anti-war speech was taken down from his campaign website. Why? I can't type the answer myself, because I'll be quivering with laughter so badly I couldn't type. Let me paste:

The only reason that my original anti-war speech was removed from my website was a judgment that the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over, and my staff's desire to continually provide fresh news clips.

The "formal part" of the war was over.
I give Obama points for careful parsing---he could probably explain away that quote today, if he had to. But I just wonder what he thought about the predictions he made in 2002? Did he decide his 2002 speech was wrong, only to change his mind again in 2004?

Please, give me Edwards or Hillary, or Biden in a pinch. Please don't send Obama to the GE so he can lose to McCain.